Especially those not influenced by the blatant marketing research being done by Dice using the most recent polls.
Polls used to be a fun way to show your geek credibility, see how you fit or didnt fit with the slashdot crowd, find fun ways to make fun of CowboyNeal, or simply just fun. Now they are blatant marketing research on our "demographic" without any originality. I am counting the days until they start asking us about our political beliefs, religion, income or whatever else they are getting paid for.
What happened to CowboyNeal?!
AltSlashdot aka http://soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org] is the new Slashdot not run by greedy overlords.

Another missing option: Set in the past, with characters from the future. One example is 1632, by Eric Flint [baenebooks.com]. I like a variety of books too. They can be set in the past, in current times, or in the future provided they have a good story. I think least favourite however is the future, because it's so hard to get right. To speculate about what might be available in the future, without getting the science wrong, and without going on for chapters to tiny details that set up the whole book seems to be somethi

I enjoyed the Cold War thrillers (both military and espionage) that were popular in the '80s and '90s. Military fiction these days seems to be mostly focused on terrorism, which makes for boring adversaries (rabid dogs that need to be put down versus an intelligent, wily, and rational enemy).

I agree. I've been re-reading the entire Jack Ryan/John Clark chronology and it gets more boring post-cold-war and then much more boring post-9/11.
Now the military fiction I read is the futuristic kind such as Honor Harrington.

Bigger than Baen's free library at any given point in time, and while it doesn't have the newer books, it's a great (and by great I mean I-hope-you-didn't-have-anything-planned-for-a-few-weeks) way to read some excellent sci-fi, much of it military in nature.

The narrative we learn about World War One (1914-1918) in English-speaking countries is a distorted product of the victors that is cartoonish and incomplete. Everyone knows about "All Quiet on the Western Front" but few English-speakers have read "The Storm of Steel," also written by a German soldier. (Spoiler alert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]) John Mosier is a revisionist historian who is asking some penetrating questions that have made many historians uncomfortable as they poke holes in his details while being unable to refute his central thesis - British and French casualties were roughly double those of the German army they faced along the Western Front. Mosier makes a strong case that if the USA had never entered the war, Germany likely would have taken over France in 1918. The American "arsenal of democracy" and the successes of the American Expeditionary Force under Pershing doomed Germany. They also got Britain and France's irons out of the fire. Keep in mind that "invading Russia is suicide" did not apply in World War One as Germany gobbled up Russia practically to the gates of Moscow by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org] .
Here are my personal questions based on having been fed the World War One story primarily by British authors: 1) Why did Britain go to war with Royal Navy battlecruisers doomed by thin armor and extremely vulnerable gunpowder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org] ? 2) Why did the Royal Flying Corps refuse to issue parachutes to their pilots for the entire war while their balloonists used them for years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org] ? 3) Why were the British still launching suicidal human wave attacks AFTER TWO YEARS OF TRENCH WARFARE (July 1, 2016 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org] )? One can only reasonably conclude the British leadership from the level of general/admiral and above had almost no regard for the human lives with which they had been entrusted.

The US "almost" entered on the side of Germany. What would the world have looked like if the US had entered on Germany's side? Would the Tzars have been oused in Russia? Would the punished Germany have come back to start WWII?

I don't want fiction, I want alternate reality non-fiction. Lets go back in time and enter WWI on Germany's side and see what happens. WWII would have not been a world war, but a Japan-China war, and without Russia having gone Communist, the democratic China (democratic monarch

It's hard to imagine the United States joining the Central Powers, particularly when one "follows the money." Courtesy of the Royal Navy blockade, Britain and France were huge, vigorous markets for all manner of American goods throughout World War One. Like the British considering whether to enter the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy, the overseas power found itself mostly shut out from a market by a blockade. However, the loss of one trading partner was more than compensated for by the ga

There was a large German presence in the USA at the time. Since WWII, they have tried to "fit in" better, but there were a number of communities in PA and central TX where German was the local language.

Interestingly, around the turn of the century the Germans considered a series of plans to attack the U.S. directly [wikipedia.org]. And as an alternative history buff you may be interested in a novelization of those plans by Robert Conroy called 1901 [amazon.com], and also the H.G. Wells classic The War in the Air [amazon.com], which if written today would be considered steampunk alternative history but is cooler than that for having been written in 1907.

The German "Great General Staff" considered a huge number of plans, conducting "staff rides" for the ones that might be applicable to a future conflict. I read the summary of "1901" on Amazon's website and have to dismiss it out of hand for a complete lack of basis in reality. I am willing to bet the Great General Staff did not conduct a staff ride regarding this plan to tackle the USA. Note that Alfred Thayer Mahan published his treatise on sea power around 1900 and pointed out how critical naval bases wer

The 'no parachutes' directive was a simple piece of high-level idiocy; it was felt that aviators would not press home their attacks with sufficient determination if they were given an avenue of escape from their plane, so that they might choose to bail out of only lightly-damaged aircraft. Early in the war, aircraft were at a premium, and the cachet of air service was such that they had all the volunteers they could ask for -- and early parachutes were bulky and heavy, hard to fit in the cramped cockpits of

The 'no parachutes' directive is another reflection of the British approach: lots of aggression, show the flag, and casualties be damned. The Royal Flying Corps compounded this problem in a similar fashion to the British infantry on the ground. In the air, the RFC was "the aggressor," pushing a lot of patrols past "no man's land" to overfly German positions. This would result in more British than German exposure to anti-aircraft fire, resulting in more planes and pilots hit. To compound the issue and the ca

Mosier makes a strong case that if the USA had never entered the war, Germany likely would have taken over France in 1918.

I don't know what's being taught in schools today, but back when I studied that part of history in the mid-1960s, that's what we learned. France and England were running low on cannon-fodder by then (Partly because the generals treated their soldiers as exactly that.) and would have been forced to give up simply because they ran out of men who were both willing and able to man the tr

Pershing wasn't committed to repeating the same failed strategy over and over, and had some fresh, imaginative ideas that actually worked didn't hurt.

I read someplace (I think Parachuting's Unforgettable Jumps Howard Gregory, http://www.amazon.com/Parachut... [amazon.com] ) where Billy Mitchell had an idea of flying aircraft and landing troops by parachute inside enemy lines to attack from the rear. Because at that time only way to advance troops is directly into front lines. But the war ended before an Airborne Div could be formed.

Getting back to failed strategy, how many of you think this kind of thinking still goes on today?

Documentary showed a clip of history class at West Point, instructor says, "Who was the strongest military in 1915? And if you say Germany, you answered wrong. It was Great Britain." Yep, and 25 years later GB was fighting for their very existence but the US came to their rescue. Instructor went on and said US is most powerful military but what were to happen if we get into same situation. Who will save us? This was shown in 2001, and it seems to stick in my mind there's 12 more years to go.

Germany's field marshal believed that if the Royal Navy had sunk these before they reached Constantinople, the Turks would have stayed out of the war and Germany would have been defeated by 1916. This would also imply that the USA would have remained neutral and the Bolshevik Revolution might not have happened. The world today would look very different indeed.

Guess I'm in the minority, though it depends on how you define "distant" or "recent" past. I have read multiple times the Aubrey/Maturin (Master and Commander) series by Patrick O'Brien; the Horatio Hornblower series by C.S. Forester, and the Sharpe's series by Bernard Cornwell. All of these take place during the Napoleonic Wars. It's a period of history not covered well in American schools (except for the little side-show we call the War of 1812). All three authors did a great deal of research to bring

It was a great read, but most of what made it great was not included in the film, which really was a bit of a circus. Honestly, they can skip doing any more Heinlein films if all they want is the futuristic setting and fight.

The film was a satire of Heinlein's terrible social ideals encapsulated in a simple action movie, rather than a straight representation of his utopian vision of war encapsulated in a more intellectually challenging plot.

Reading Heinlein is a bit about suspension of disbelieve regarding all the semi-objectivist silliness in a way I can't quite do.

Yeah, which is why the director of the movie made the good guys all wear barely-modified 3rd Reich uniforms, and kept rubbing our faces in the fact that we were rooting for Nazis. This made Starship Troopers the most reflective and emotionally complex space-war movie I know of. This is what can happen when you leave a Hollywood blockbuster in the hands of a Dutch arthouse movie director: He'll mess with paradigms. And to be fair, Heinlein's story was absolutely asking for it. I'm just so impressed that he h

Yes, I saw the movie, but I don't see your point. Heinlein's book was "here's a great way to run society/the military, and look, in the fiction everything works great" and the movie was more "Yeah, here's how that would actually turn out. Also here's some violence and a romance subplot because we're still Hollywood"

This wasn't as clear in the movie as in the book, but the point of having to serve in the military to vote wasn't exactly about earning it through serving society.
It was to teach people "social responsibility requires being prepared to make individual sacrifice", which can only be learned by risking your life on the battlefield.

A system like this prevents the government from losing its focus unlike typical republics and democracies. Sort of like how America used to be focused on individual liberties an

It wasn't just limited to military veterans though. Everyone who wanted to could serve. Someone born without arms and legs would be given some sort of civil service job, even if it was just pushing buttons with his nose, if they wanted to serve and thus gain full citizenship.

How is it undemocratic and fascist (ignoring the horrid movie)? No one could be denied the right to earn their citizenship. No exceptions (well, maybe criminals were an exception). Also, military service wasn't the only way to earn citizenship. But the book's protagonist chose that route so that's where the story centered.

Also, no where in the book is it even suggested that dissent was discouraged. Now if your entire view is based on the movie, I can see where you can be completely clueless since they

If there is a way to disenfrancise people, it will be abused. We're seeing that now with this manufactured hysteria over alleged cheating at the polls and the pushing of photo IDs to "solve" this "problem". That the state does not trouble to see that everyone receives a photo ID is most telling. Instead, voters may have to travel miles, wait in long lines, be lectured about how it's a felony to vote under a false identity, and pay a huge fee. It's the all new poll tax!

Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems.

Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent.

I can see how only allowing veterans suffrage would totally prevent this.

Be sure. Few years ago Empire magazine ran a story "Triple Dutch" about Verhoven's Hollywood years. He was horrified by the book, did not finish it even, so it was a firm decision to make the movie a satire. I remember when I watched it first time I was rooting for the bugs. Only this movie and Avatar has had that effect on me. The uniforms were deliberately Nazi-like, the bathroom scene was intended to show that those soldiers are so brainwashed, so machine-like that they are not exhibiting even basic huma

What terrible social ideas did Heinlen put forward in Starship Troopers?

The main one that people always talk about is that in the novel citizenship is contingent on having served in the military. That, and the general interpretation that the book is pro-military (e.g. GP's "utopian vision of war").

Personally, I think that we've been so conditioned to see metaphors and morals in our stories that we automatically assume that there must be a subtext to narrative choices. The whole concept of Chekhov's gun - if it's worth mentioning, it must be critical to the plot. We always have

It's has been pointed out numerous times, military service was not the only way to earn citizenship. Perhaps you should take some time to actually read the book instead of basing your opinion on the completely tainted source of that shit turd movie.

It's has been pointed out numerous times, military service was not the only way to earn citizenship. Perhaps you should take some time to actually read the book instead of basing your opinion on the completely tainted source of that shit turd movie.

Why don't you point your misplaced aggression at a more suitable and less intelligent target, oh like,/. BETA! That AC has you by skads in the literary analysis and sick burn categories.

Nope. Read them both. Still prefer Heinlein. Also a Harlan Ellison fan. Love me some Arthur C. Clarke, too. Besides, Starship Troopers predates Forever War by 15 years. Haldeman had read it, surely, and would most certainly have been influenced by it. I call shenanigans!

More to the point of being true for myself having been there and done that. If it has to be fictional, of the very little that feels believable and much more interesting, are the stories in film or literature based on the actual experiences of their creators.

Whether true or not, only a couple of films seem to get close to getting the feeling right. As far as literature is concerned, memoirs usually work best for myself — Philip Caputo's, A Rumor of War and Robert Mason's two books, particularly the f

If it's leavened with other stuff, like Erik Flint's 1632 series (featuring a few volumes that could be classified as military fiction), why not? Pure MF is not nearly as interesting as real-world historiography to me, though.

Whoever decided this was a good topic for a poll clearly has no clue what Slashdot was once about. R.I.P. Slashdot

I avoided slashdot over the last week in protest over Beta. I come back to find out I haven't missed much and that my slashdot addiction has almost been cured.

When I cleared all my browser cache, cookies, etc. was the first time I saw Beta. Really, you shouldn't worry about a slashdot addiction if they force that interface. Slashdot will die and that will be the end of it. There's something about dickheads in charge, who feel things which are perfectly fine require radical change.

Really, you shouldn't worry about a slashdot addiction if they force that interface.

I agree.. but right now I can have my Slashdot without Beta.. so if I stay away I feel the pull of that addiction. I had the shakes on the first 2 days of my protest - then they slowly died off and I was like "slashdot, meh". Now I'm back its like "Yep I can see why I was protesting"

I'm suspecting it's influenced by the upcoming 300: Rise of an Empire, another whack at remaking history in contemporary American values, with a bunch of guys running around who look more like pro wrestlers than the wiry little dudes of ancient times.

Yeah, fuck all the remaking interesting cultures with american values! I've had some sort of class on Greek history every four years or so since grade school and it bothers me so much that they advertise period pieces and then erase all the culture of the time and replace it with some sort of sermon on idealized american values. I live in the US; I talk to my redneck neighbors; anyone can give me a sermon about freedom and it's a dialog I don't need to pay to see in 3D. Just get to the friggin pro wrestling

Please indicate how much you are not prepared to bite.
a) not bite even one tiny little bit.
b) bite only a small amount.
c) only half bitten the subject.
d) very tempted to bite so having a large nibble.
e) hook, line, sinker, keel and outboard motor.

Stay away from Tom Kratman. Interesting from a military POV (I guess, as I've never been a soldier), but it gets overshadowed by his sometimes very opinionated ideas on politics, culture, and how humans work in general.

I tried a couple of Honor Harringtons but gave up in disgust at the author's political strawmanning.

In those books, a character can't be pacifist without also being cowardly, hypocritical, corrupt and Machiavellian. Only characters who adhere to a particular militaristic mindset can be good people. Although they were otherwise mostly good, this aspect killed my enjoyment.

Also, one chapter started with a short paragraph which managed to gratuitously specify about eight statistics on some (real current world)

Well...I haven't read them, but they have made a string of successful movies out of the Jack Ryan series (The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger and others) by Tom Clancy. Not the military SF you were asking for, but it is military fiction.

Honor Harrington? The first 67 books in the series were okay -- the ones that took place when Harrington was still a mere human. The last 589, however, have been a bit of a stretch. You know, the ones where she becomes a master space-yachtsman; a martial arts master; acquires a bionic arm; a bionic eye; an elite cadre of crack-shot martial arts masters bodyguards; a super-intelligent, super-empathic, telepathic, vicious pet "treecat,;" when her friends, relatives and everyone around her acquire these same "

I love the books, but I have to admit, it was funny. There's a part of me that wishes Weber had stuck to the original plan for the end of the battle of Manticore, although the new direction of the series has some interesting points too.

War is about conflict. Conflict is what makes a story interesting. Conflict is the basic theme in fiction. Man against man. Man against himself. Man against nature. Often there are combinations of all three. You should have learned this in high school. Really, if you expect fiction to be without conflict, YOU're the one who has a problem.